Beware of the Shock Doctrine

...its impacts on education and its ongoing damage

Naomi Klein’s 2007 book The Shock Doctrine offers a well-researched overview of how neoliberal economic theory - championed by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics - came to dominate global policy. Margaret Thatcher and Roger Douglas were amongst its most fervent disciples.

One of the early challenges for neoliberal advocates was that many left leaning or centrist governments invested heavily in social services which voters broadly supported. Transitioning to a model that reduced government expenditure and prioritised privatisation and business interests was a hard sell. The breakthrough came with the realisation that radical reform was far easier to implement during a crisis or shock and urgent action was justified - or failing that a manufactured one that created the perception of urgency.

In South American countries that didn’t have resilient democracies autocratic figures like Pinochet used fear and violence to enforce sweeping reforms. Thatcher used the miners’ strikes and the Falklands war to galvanise public support for her agenda, while Douglas exploited the economic chaos left by Muldoon to push through his rapid privatisations.

Around this time, the influential Picot report laid the foundations for Tomorrow’s Schools, emerging from a distinctly neoliberal, business lens.

In most cases the solutions failed to resolve the crisis they purported to address. Nevertheless, the perceived gravity of the problem usually shielded the reforms from blame. Over time even flawed changes become normalised, settling into the background as the “new normal”.

The “shock doctrine” continues to shape education policy in New Zealand - particularly under conservative, right wing governments. During the previous National led administration we saw the neoliberal Global Education Reform Movement (GERM) exert a powerful influence. A co-constructed curriculum about to be implemented in 2008 was abruptly shelved in favour of the hastily constructed National Standards policy.

The fabricated crisis justifying this pivot was the lack of consistent reporting of child progress to parents. It was a thinly veiled pretext. On top of that was the perennial favourite of conservative governments, the concern that the education curriculum was too broad and a ‘back to basics’ approach was needed to fix under-achievement. The National Standards policy was launched without clear evidence or full development.

The Canterbury earthquakes provided another crisis to impose sweeping, money saving changes- this time in Christchurch schools. Amid trauma and disarray, affected communities had little capacity to resist. School reorganisations were pushed through with limited consultation. They had a negative impact on children and families who desperately needed stability and support at the time. An Ombudsman report on the process was damning, but by then the damage was done.

Another fabricated crisis was teacher quality and misconduct. Despite involving a tiny percentage of teachers, it was promoted that many incompetent teachers and child abusers were being supported by the profession. It was claimed that the disciplinary process was failing and that the existing Teachers Council needed to be replaced. The government claimed that teacher unions existed for the teachers’ interests not children.

One of the impacts of the government propaganda was an erosion of public respect for teachers and their unions, which was also used to justify the introduction of Charter Schools - ironically under a similar framework to Tommorow’s Schools. However, this model dispensed with a requirement for qualified teachers and collective agreements. Lesley Longstone was brought to New Zealand to lead the Ministry of Education after her previous role of overseeing introduction of Free (Charter) Schools in the UK.

Teachers pushed back, mitigating some of the worst potential outcomes. The damage was still significant and resulted in substantial operational shifts and unnecessary stress to the sector. New Zealand did escape the full commercialisation of education seen in other GERM - effected countries.

The Labour-led government that followed, reversed many of the most worrying changes including National Standards and Charter Schools. But reversing a decade of policy and cultural shifts is not an easy task. Many of those with the knowledge to lead change had left the sector. The Ministry itself had become a bureaucratic machine disconnected from the realities of teaching and learning.

Structural issues such as child poverty, inadequate housing and underfunded learning support continued. While Labour did value evidence and professional input, truly transformational change never materialised. Then came the COVID 19 pandemic which halted momentum and compounded pre-existing learning challenges.

Right wing governments are often more effective agents of change - not because their policies are better, but because they are willing to override due process and impose reform with minimal consultation. It took around seven years to co-construct the curriculum under Labour; National imposed National Standards in one. Opposing teachers and principals were bullied into silence.

We are experiencing another National led government with an energised Act party. A manufactured crisis in numeracy and literacy has prompted a return to “back to basics” thinking and a prescriptive curriculum. A new standardised assessment system - eerily reminiscent of National Standards - seems poised to re-emerge, potentially becoming a tool for school comparisons and teacher evaluations.

While initial engagement with the sector was promising, the Minister has since reverted to politically driven, rather than evidence-based reform. The hasty introduction of a financial literacy curriculum is further evidence of that approach.

The Associate Minister of Education has a ‘slash and burn’ ethos, showing little concern or need for sector consultation. The funding cuts to the school lunch programme, replaced by a transactional, corporate model, illustrated a disregard for quality and community value. Charter Schools are back with a significantly greater investment - despite lackluster uptake, multiple failures and hidden costs in their previous iteration.

The high costs of Early Childhood Education (ECE) for parents is the next crisis. While this is not fabricated, the corporate model that is the favoured solution is actually the root of the problem. Deregulation and lowered qualification standards will just lower quality education and increase profits for corporate owners.

Research has long contradicted this approach. An NZCER paper, comparing profit and not for profit centres, made the following finding:

“…this review clearly indicate the links between well qualified teachers, higher teacher salaries, and better quality of provision. They show that private centres are likely to score lower on all these variables.”

Over two decades later research from the Child Poverty Action Group produced an almost identical conclusion:

”…private for-profit providers are less likely to provide quality services across a range of indicators, including teacher qualifications, workloads and retention, teacher-to-child ratios, and cultural responsiveness.”

Once again, ideology is driving policy - disregarding evidence and putting another generation of children at risk. Unless we recognise and resist the pattern, the shock doctrine will continue to reshape education - not in the service of children but in pursuit of an ideological agenda that prioritises market outcomes over human development and equity.